ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

One of the biggest organizations that track sea ice shows that it's recovering, that's who ;)

This graph leaves out the two years where arctic sea ice has been improving at a pretty dramatic rate - 2014 and 2015.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Go here.. select the 2014 and 2015 levels.

Gloop said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6pFDu7lLV4
This is the best documentary on the Arctic Death Spiral and Methane Time Bomb I have seen.

And a graph courtesy of Andy Robinson.

zZ8ru23.png


Who says sea ice decline is linear or even recovering?
Easy to hide the decline if you stretch the X axis and shrink the Y axis, then the decline isn't visible to the naked eye.
Click to expand...
 
That's like trying to prove global warming on the basis that today's weather is warmer than yesterdays, despite the previous month being colder. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics and the nature of scientific data.
 
neptronix said:
One of the biggest organizations that track sea ice shows that it's recovering, that's who ;)

This graph leaves out the two years where arctic sea ice has been improving at a pretty dramatic rate - 2014 and 2015.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Go here.. select the 2014 and 2015 levels.

Gloop said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6pFDu7lLV4
This is the best documentary on the Arctic Death Spiral and Methane Time Bomb I have seen.

And a graph courtesy of Andy Robinson.

zZ8ru23.png


Who says sea ice decline is linear or even recovering?
Easy to hide the decline if you stretch the X axis and shrink the Y axis, then the decline isn't visible to the naked eye.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I posted this earlier...seems applicable now :D
You could have made the argument that the sea ice was recovering at least 8 times in the last 35 years...and each time, you would be wrong.
jkaNgQy.png

$50 says we reach zero ice before 2025.
It takes the same amount of energy to raise water 0 to 81 degrees C, as it did to melt that ice at 0 degrees C. This is because of ice's latent heat of fusion. This means things get very hot very fast once that ice is gone, and this can lead to methane hydrate destabilization. The result of this according to Peter Wadhams (eminent world expert on sea ice) is an abrupt climate change that civilization could not withstand. The blue ocean event will only last a few weeks at first, and within a decade or two might be year-round. Under such circumstances, it is inconceivable how methane hydrates will stay locked up on the Arctic ocean floor.
 
Gloop said:
...it is inconceivable how methane hydrates will stay locked up on the Arctic ocean floor.
Click to expand...

Hehe... From April 30, earlier this year "Hundreds of methane gas flares found off coast of Gisborne" (New Zealand):
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11441247.

Surprisingly, the team discovered that every area of carbonate rock and every fault seen on the seafloor was expelling gas, and in total, they calculated there were near to 766 individual gas flares within the area.
Click to expand...
 
Gloop said:
You could have made the argument that the sea ice was recovering at least 8 times in the last 35 years...and each time, you would be wrong.

$50 says we reach zero ice before 2025.
It takes the same amount of energy to raise water 0 to 81 degrees C, as it did to melt that ice at 0 degrees C. This is because of ice's latent heat of fusion. This means things get very hot very fast once that ice is gone, and this can lead to methane hydrate destabilization. The result of this according to Peter Wadhams (eminent world expert on sea ice) is an abrupt climate change that civilization could not withstand. The blue ocean event will only last a few weeks at first, and within a decade or two might be year-round. Under such circumstances, it is inconceivable how methane hydrates will stay locked up on the Arctic ocean floor.
Click to expand...

I never made that argument, i was just pointing out the fact that you posted this and left the good stuff out.

That minimum ice graph seems to really disagree with the NSIDC though, they show that the low point this year is only 2.5 million square kilometers lower than the the highest recorded point, in 1981. Your graph shows a 8.5 million square mile difference. They are giving measurements that are different by 300%. Who's data is correct?

As for methane hydrates, i say we capture that methane, put that methane in a fuel cell, and make electricity at ~70% efficiency and call it a day rather than expect to die. What do you say?

I'd make a $50 bet with you.. but that's kind of a long game :lol:
I should have made a bet with the BBC, cuz they thought all the ice would be gone by summer 2013.. so did Al Gore.
 
Punx0r said:
That's like trying to prove global warming on the basis that today's weather is warmer than yesterdays, despite the previous month being colder. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics and the nature of scientific data.
Click to expand...

I suspect as the situation worsens we will eventually see record levels of sea ice in the Arctic and then the Ice sheets will be completely gone.

Though obviously despite what the deniers and their magic graphs show - Arctic sea ice is currently at record lows since satellite coverage has begun.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
 
neptronix said:
That minimum ice graph seems to really disagree with the NSIDC though, they show that the low point this year is only 2.5 million square kilometers lower than the the highest recorded point, in 1981. Your graph shows a 8.5 million square mile difference. They are giving measurements that are different by 300%. Who's data is correct?
Click to expand...

Can you post the two sources you're comparing. Bear in mind that some data I've noticed records volume, while some records area and so presumably aren't equivalent.
 
Scroll up. NSIDC tracks extent.

Duh, that must be the difference.

Punx0r said:
neptronix said:
Can you post the two sources you're comparing. Bear in mind that some data I've noticed records volume, while some records area and so presumably aren't equivalent.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
neptronix said:
Gloop said:
You could have made the argument that the sea ice was recovering at least 8 times in the last 35 years...and each time, you would be wrong.

$50 says we reach zero ice before 2025.
It takes the same amount of energy to raise water 0 to 81 degrees C, as it did to melt that ice at 0 degrees C. This is because of ice's latent heat of fusion. This means things get very hot very fast once that ice is gone, and this can lead to methane hydrate destabilization. The result of this according to Peter Wadhams (eminent world expert on sea ice) is an abrupt climate change that civilization could not withstand. The blue ocean event will only last a few weeks at first, and within a decade or two might be year-round. Under such circumstances, it is inconceivable how methane hydrates will stay locked up on the Arctic ocean floor.
Click to expand...

I never made that argument, i was just pointing out the fact that you posted this and left the good stuff out.

That minimum ice graph seems to really disagree with the NSIDC though, they show that the low point this year is only 2.5 million square kilometers lower than the the highest recorded point, in 1981. Your graph shows a 8.5 million square mile difference. They are giving measurements that are different by 300%. Who's data is correct?

As for methane hydrates, i say we capture that methane, put that methane in a fuel cell, and make electricity at ~70% efficiency and call it a day rather than expect to die. What do you say?

I'd make a $50 bet with you.. but that's kind of a long game :lol:
I should have made a bet with the BBC, cuz they thought all the ice would be gone by summer 2013.. so did Al Gore.
Click to expand...

You might be able to capture the methane from dense methane seeps, but the areas of methane venting are in the millions of square miles. I have seen geoengineering ideas to use enormous plastic sheets kilometres in diameter to attempt to capture and burn/story the methane. But all this is just theory. We don't know how to stop the process once it begins.
 
....This means things get very hot very fast once that ice is gone, and this can lead to methane hydrate destabilization. The result of this according to Peter Wadhams (eminent world expert on sea ice) is an abrupt climate change that civilization could not withstand.
Click to expand...
Hmm ?.. not a good reference. He was the expert that was previously quoted as saying we were going to see the end of the ICE by 2015 ? :roll:
I also seem to recall the the methane hydrates are formed by pressure rather than temperature influence. ?
Seems like every one wants to be the first to press the PANIC button.
if we are not careful we could see a "Lemming" senario, with us killing ourselves in a panic to avoid an uncertain death ! :shock:
 
You're dismissing Wadhams because he made a wrong prediction?
I think his credentials and work history make him an expert.
Also methane hydrate is responsive to pressure and temperature. It is ice after all.
And don't worry no one is panicing. No one is even paying attention.
 
Gloop said:
You might be able to capture the methane from dense methane seeps, but the areas of methane venting are in the millions of square miles. I have seen geoengineering ideas to use enormous plastic sheets kilometres in diameter to attempt to capture and burn/story the methane. But all this is just theory. We don't know how to stop the process once it begins.
Click to expand...

I heard that some groups in Japan were researching ways to make use of these underwater methane stores.. i think i read about this stuff last year.

Japan extracts gas from methane hydrate in world first

I suspect that something could be done, with a little ingenuity. Seems like it would be a good idea to get the people who are doing advanced-level oil and natural gas extraction ( fracking, shale, etc ) and put them on this job via a system of incentives and disincentives. The only problem is shipping the stuff once you have captured it.

We work harder to extract more difficult sources of fossil fuels than that. Blowing up a mountain to find coal and then re mediating it afterwards is a hell of a job, for example.

We don't know how to stop the process once it begins, nor entirely how it works. We barely have 3 decades of information in what happens to arctic and antarctic ice. We have been geoengineering the world unwittingly by burning insane amounts of fossil fuels though. It's rather disconcerting.

This is why i do not necessarily believe in the worsst case scenarios. I've been following climate change stuff since 2000 and heard tons of doomsday predictions that never panned out. I think that we will find a way. Unfortunately, we usually find 'the way' after shit has hit the fan.

Example: 1970's oil crisis. We were totally unprepared for that. We were still totally unprepared for the price increases of oil around 2008. Solutions were found after/during the time that the feces was hitting the oscillator... but we did find a way, and peak oil didn't happen.
 
there is no we. it is you who are not capable of understanding reality because of the type of personality you cultivate.

never graduated and yet you know how all this science is just bogus because the scientists are paid off by al gore or some other environmentalist fiend the koch brothers stuck in your head through the libertarian/republican agenda.
 
Damnit, dnmun. You got me.

I thought that infiltrating this forum as an ebike enthusiast and hybrid car owner would work to fool you guys this whole time.
It has been very hard work; this business of building several electric bikes and documenting them, gaining enough respect to become a moderator. Responding to almost ten thousand people asking for help via private message. Writing articles on my own blog about how libertarians should support clean energy as a way to end war, producing dozens of informative videos on youtube for DIYers, et cetera. I really thought it would be the best way to promote the agenda.

It has been an incredible amount of work. I am crushed that getting you on all board to support big oil did not work.

It's true. I am a shill for the koch brothers. I hate children, elderly, and the poor. My eyes burn with rage when i see taxpayer funded infrastructure such as roads or fire stations. I keep the blinds closed in my house so that i do not have to see such intolerable filth. What i really want is the world to dry up and blow away into space, for short term profit.

I will forever be bitter to you, dnmun. But you won. I will be escaping by boat now, to an undisclosed location, before the top 1% finds me. Goodbye.
 
stereotypicallibertarian.jpg


Before i leave, i thought i would leave a photo here before i go. You will all be missed.
I will forever resent you for what you have done, dnmun.
 
neptronix said:
This is why i do not necessarily believe in the worsst case scenarios. I've been following climate change stuff since 2000 and heard tons of doomsday predictions that never panned out.

Example: 1970's oil crisis. We were totally unprepared for that. We were still totally unprepared for the price increases of oil around 2008. Solutions were found after/during the time that the feces was hitting the oscillator... but we did find a way, and peak oil didn't happen.
Click to expand...

Predictions about any given event probably form something like a bell curve, with "nothing happens" and "fiery death" occupying the opposite extremes and representing a minority opinion of low probability of being correct. The bulk of predictions would occupy the central space around the true answer (there are of course always some things which totally take the scientific world by surprise). However, the extreme predictions are the news- and gossip-worthy ones, so they're the ones we hear, and then subsequently fail to materialise.

I'm not sure the "artic clear of ice by 2015" prediction is an example of this, but I don't know the rationale behind the claim. Looking at the chart in 2012 and extrapolating from there it doesn't seem unreasonable to entertain the possibility that by 2015 the ice *might* be gone (I doubt he claimed it *would* be gone). Being less pessimistic and following the long-term trend since the 70's would put you at "no ice" sometime between 2015 and 2020. Hardly and unreasonable prediction. That also assumes ice loss doesn't accelerate towards the end. Even if we say "no ice" by 2025, or 2050, that's bad.

The 70's oil crisis was caused by an deliberate restriction in supply, the 2008 prices by investor speculation - both artificial. Solutions weren't found: people just went without and/or paid more for the same thing.
 
Punx0r said:
Predictions about any given event probably form something like a bell curve, with "nothing happens" and "fiery death" occupying the opposite extremes and representing a minority opinion of low probability of being correct. The bulk of predictions would occupy the central space around the true answer (there are of course always some things which totally take the scientific world by surprise). However, the extreme predictions are the news- and gossip-worthy ones, so they're the ones we hear, and then subsequently fail to materialise.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that is what i have been talking about in this thread the entire time, but a lot of people have strawmanned me, thinking that would make some kind of difference in the debate or my opinion. Any unapproved opinions must put you in the denier camp..

This is what i mean about the environmentalist death cult and the cult of the denier.
The deniers feel cock-sure about being correct even though they are not necessarily so, and they just tend to be imbeciles. If carbon emissions are really as bad as they are, then they become part of the problem because they are totally unwilling to address their own carbon footprint.
The environmentalist death cult lives in constant fear and loves stoking that fear. I used to trend more that way. It's not fun. My problem with these people is that they are often not willing to do their part either.

This is really dysfunctional and the two sides need to reconcile. Healthy debate from both sides may bring both sides to truth, which is somewhere in the middle. Super important, if we're dealing with a huge global issue, yes? some egos are gonna get hurt, but some egos deserve to be hurt.

Punx0r said:
The 70's oil crisis was caused by an deliberate restriction in supply, the 2008 prices by investor speculation - both artificial. Solutions weren't found: people just went without and/or paid more for the same thing.
Click to expand...

One was artificial, another was not. Both have been a result of failing to create what we need in our own nation, or simply reducing our use of the stuff to a level that was sustainable. Opec had us by the balls for a long time and they knew it. The 70's oil crisis and speculation does not happen suddenly without warning. It is kind of like a symptom of a disease that you have ignored for many years really showing it's ugly head.

The middle east was probably laughing at us every time they heard one of our peak oil death cult members go hysterical. Then, we invented modern oil and gas extraction technology and made the Saudis clutch their little golden Dolce & Gabbana man-purses in fear.

Never underestimate the ability of man to correct his fuckups. This is unfortunately how our nation works. We are still a young republic and those in charge rarely think about the long game. Our country is operated by the mentality of a stupid teenager, yet it is strong and virile enough to be able to heal when it falls off the skateboard and smacks it's knee. It's never ready to learn until it gets hurt badly and is laid up for months.

I truly think that there is a way to mitigate the problems we have today. Just look at what problems brilliant minds have solved already. The time to be truly terrified is when those brilliant minds can't figure it out. That's when you can acceptably live in fear.
 
Punx0r said:
neptronix said:
This is why i do not necessarily believe in the worsst case scenarios. I've been following climate change stuff since 2000 and heard tons of doomsday predictions that never panned out.

Example: 1970's oil crisis. We were totally unprepared for that. We were still totally unprepared for the price increases of oil around 2008. Solutions were found after/during the time that the feces was hitting the oscillator... but we did find a way, and peak oil didn't happen.
Click to expand...

Predictions about any given event probably form something like a bell curve, with "nothing happens" and "fiery death" occupying the opposite extremes and representing a minority opinion of low probability of being correct. The bulk of predictions would occupy the central space around the true answer (there are of course always some things which totally take the scientific world by surprise). However, the extreme predictions are the news- and gossip-worthy ones, so they're the ones we hear, and then subsequently fail to materialise.

I'm not sure the "artic clear of ice by 2015" prediction is an example of this, but I don't know the rationale behind the claim. Looking at the chart in 2012 and extrapolating from there it doesn't seem unreasonable to entertain the possibility that by 2015 the ice *might* be gone (I doubt he claimed it *would* be gone). Being less pessimistic and following the long-term trend since the 70's would put you at "no ice" sometime between 2015 and 2020. Hardly and unreasonable prediction. That also assumes ice loss doesn't accelerate towards the end. Even if we say "no ice" by 2025, or 2050, that's bad.

The 70's oil crisis was caused by an deliberate restriction in supply, the 2008 prices by investor speculation - both artificial. Solutions weren't found: people just went without and/or paid more for the same thing.
Click to expand...

I read a book called "The Black Swan" which postulated that with things like climate change, the middle of the bell curve may be fiery death while the tail ends are IPCC and super-extreme scenarios.

You guys don't think the 70s oil crisis had anything to do with the US peaking in production while demand rocketed? Look how rapidly imports rise after 1970.

bR3tIa3.png


And by the way peak oil did happen, we are stuck on what's called a "bumpy plateau". We're increasing the number of drill rigs everyday and yet we can't significantly raise production the way we used to. Don't you think with consumptions increasing worldwide we would want to increase oil production?

After the bumpy plateau comes a) a decline of some type b)more oil drilled in the Arctic since that ice is gone now!

QgJl9wa.png
 
"You guys don't think the 70s oil crisis had anything to do with the US peaking in production?"

no, it had nothing to do with decline in US production.

in case you have not noticed the number of drilling rigs in the US has dropped about 60% in the last 9 months. along with the price of crude.

a number of offshore projects are already cancelled and the british now are starting to figure out how to decommission a lot of their own offshore production since the cost of production is more than the crude can be sold for.
 
you are looking short term and just in the US. The number of drilling rigs today in the world is higher than it was 10 years ago.

http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/global-oil-and-gas-drilling-hits-30-year-high

and you are obviously deluding yourself if you think real world production numbers dont have an influence on economy. im sure you think the world can experience global peak oil without any bad economic effects either.
 
Maybe climate change is really a front for fighting the war on terrorism, sure we might hurt a few innocent people but looks like we will get them in the end..

Heat index in Iran hits staggering 163 degrees

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/07/31/heat-index-iran-163-degrees/30933451/
 
TheBeastie said:
Maybe climate change is really a front for fighting the war on terrorism, sure we might hurt a few innocent people but looks like we will get them in the end..

Heat index in Iran hits staggering 163 degrees
Click to expand...


HA. Lucky Canadian dudes always get stuff cooler (temps measured as Celsius rather than Fahrenheit). Oh. Waitasec... Equal to 72.something C.... never mind.
 
TheBeastie said:
Maybe climate change is really a front for fighting the war on terrorism, sure we might hurt a few innocent people but looks like we will get them in the end..

Heat index in Iran hits staggering 163 degrees

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/07/31/heat-index-iran-163-degrees/30933451/
Click to expand...

It was only 115 deg. F in actual temperatures. Heat index rose due to a high humidity day.
Pretty normal for the area. It's basically a desert right next to the coast on a latitude line that's right about where Mexico's coast is.

That part of the world basically has the climate of death valley.. give or take a few degrees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Valley#Climate

I'd be pretty um... "irate" if i lived there, too :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top